If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Was there ANY legitimate reason to drop those bombs?
Would Japan REALLY have 'fought to the death'?
Why didn't Truman/Churchill/Stalin offer Japan a conditional surrender on the TERMS that the unconditional surrender was signed???
Would Japan REALLY have 'fought to the death'?
Why didn't Truman/Churchill/Stalin offer Japan a conditional surrender on the TERMS that the unconditional surrender was signed???
0
Comments
But seeing as the US failed to sign and agree to a treaty to commit to not using Napalm weapons after the Vietnam war I guess they thought they had the right to!
The Japanese would have never surrendered.
The Nuclear bombs , while terrible , saved millions of lives on both the US and Japanese sides.
America changed alot of things to suit themselves, propaganda all over America, I think part of dropping the bombs was to gain revenge for Pearl Harbour...the americans wouldn't settle till they got revenge.
Then whats the problem.
Can you sugegst a different method for defeating Japan?
Just thank the lord Stalin or Hitler or the Japanese didnt get the A-bomb first.
The bombs probably killed 300,000 between the initial casualties and the subsequent deaths in the twelve months after the attacks... many more died during the following years, and even today thousands bear deformities and disabilities thanks to the devices. At least in a conventional end of the war many if not most of the casualties would be military, instead of innocent civilians. The use of such bombs was an abomination destined to save as many soldiers lives as possible at the expense of civilians.
But for what is worth any fighting side, not just the Americans, would have used A-bombs during WWII. The way wars were fought then and what was considered acceptable was rather different to today's perspective of a 'fair' war, if such thing exists.
Let's not forget the Nazi mass bombing of English cities and of course the Allied bombing of Dresden, which killed 130,000 people in one night and was a cold-blooded and premeditated mass murder on a city of little strategic importance.
What evidence is there that the Japanese would have fought to the last man?
The reason why Pearl Harbour occured was due to the US antagonising the Japanese prior to their involvement in WWII.
MANY of the US' problems in the past and today would not have arisen if the USA had not sought to 'police the world'.....
Everyone says this, but there is never any evidence to back it up. What intelligence reports support such a stance? Did Tojo or Hirohito ever state that?
So, America, Britain, France, Australia and Russia vs Japan..... whos gonna win that one? The Japanese wouldnt have fought to the end simply because they couldnt. They didnt have any guerilla forces at the time either.
The nukes dropped of Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed civilians wheras war for 3 more months would have killed less civilians, and probably less soldiers. It would have also meant that american-russian relations wouldnt have been as bad for the next 40 years
the problem being that many many innocent people were killed because of selfish capalist bastards.
A different method....invade them, America would have won very easily.
Why thank for that...so America wouldn't be ruined like Japan was, what is the difference between america and japan being destroyed..oh no i forgot, everyone loves america and worships them like the brain washed victims they are.
Perhaps you need to look at how the Japanese fought for each island, how the civillians reacted (Saipan anyone?), kamikaze attacks and then consider whether this gave the US and reason to suspect that they were in for a long and bloody fight.
If it did, then they acted correctly.
The Japanese were fanatics , they viewed the Emperor as a God , if he commanded it , they would have fought to the last.
It's not just the resolution of the fighters, it's the means at their disposal.
Iwo Jima et al showed that the Japanese were unconcerned about the loss of life their forces suffered. It was a "sin" to surrender and most soldiers chose death rather than a loos of face/honour. Those are facts of the time.
What Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed was that the US could completely destroy Japan in days is they so wished, and it woke the Japanese Govt up to the reality of their impending defeat.
If you get my drift.
Of course, people believe what they want to believe.
And both of these groups are still fighting on...
Even if a conventional invasion would have cost more than the 150,000 people killed by the A-bomb blasts (which I doubt anyway), once you add those killed within the following 5 years due to the effects of radiation and all those born with deformities you will see that the cost of using A-bombs is immensely higher than that of a conventional attack.
The evidence is the knowledge of japanese culture and the precedent set on smaller islands, as MOK said. Feel free to do some reading on Bushido to gain an insight into the mindset of the japanese military, and populace at large.
The Japanese would not have surrendered unless they knew that they faced total destruction if they did not. The atomic bombs proved to the japanese military that the allies could systematically destroy every major city in Japan.
I think the dropping of the bombs was a horrific atrocity, just as the bombing of german and english cities was..Just as the massive, often forgotten firebombing of japanese cities was..We did far more damage with the incendiary bombs than with the atomic bombs..150k people killed in tokyo during one night of firebombing alone...and we firebombed them more than twice.
Having said that, I think the bombs were necessary...Justified im not so sure about..I think they were justified at the time, in the eyes of those there at the time.
Aladdin, why do you think numbering deaths in the millions as being way off the mark?
The battle for Okinawa alone killed more than the atomic bombs..and the japanese didnt even defend the beaches. An invasion of the Japanese home isles would have been far more costly, as most military studies have suggested.
Okinawa..
142,000 Japanese civilians killed (US army figure so may be higher)
107,000 Japanese soliders killed
38,000 Americans wounded
12,000 Americans dead or missing
Hardly surprising that the Americans used the bomb six weeks later.
Perhaps they weren't so prepared to die for their country as some suggest.
How long would have a demoralised, isolated and starving nation with a decimated army would have been willing to fight for if the Allies had kept a siege and cut off all supply routes?
Millions.
There was NO justifiable reason to attack civilians in this regard.
:yes:
But America do what they want and will always do what they want...someone needs to stop them.
They surrendered after the bombs were dropped because they were slapped in the face with the undeniablel truth that they faced utter destruction. Conventional war and an invasion of the mainland gave the japanese, at least in their eyes, a chance of victory and that was enough to keep them fighting.
It had everything to do with it...You dont just ignore hundreds of years of a warrior culture that tells people that dying in your right is better than living in shame.
There was a justifiable reason, to end the war as quickly as possible and to do so with minimum loss of life.